Franklin County Municipal Court denies guilt finding in Cedar Lane Market charger case

Franklin County Municipal Court entered judgment for Nolan Price and denied the State of Ohio’s request for a finding of guilt and standard penalty over an allegedly unpaid phone charger taken from Cedar Lane Market.

The court found that the charger was not paid for, relying principally on an itemized receipt. But it held that the State had not established that Price knew the charger was unpaid before he left the store, an element the court treated as necessary to sustain the charge.

No monetary award was made. The ruling was limited to the record presented at the hearing.

"Judgment is entered for the defendant."

The court gave greatest weight to the receipt and the silent checkout video, describing them as the most reliable records in evidence. The receipt, timestamped 6:14 p.m., listed one bottled iced tea for $2.49 and did not list a phone charger; the court said this strongly supported the conclusion that the charger had not been recorded as paid.

The video showed Price placing a charger and drink near the register, tapping a card, taking a receipt and walking toward the exit. It also showed the cashier appearing to turn toward a person near the doorway. However, because the footage had no audio, the court held it could not establish what was said during the checkout or whether Price heard a warning before leaving.

The State relied on a store note stating that Price had been told before exiting that the charger was unpaid. The court found that the record did not include direct audio or a witness account confirming that Price actually received and understood such a warning.

The court also did not find the defence’s honest-mistake account proven. There was no record showing that the charger was rung up or that a cashier clearly confirmed it had been paid. Still, the court held that the defence did not bear the burden of filling the State’s evidentiary gap on notice.

It concluded that the evidence created suspicion and established nonpayment, but did not prove every required element. As the judgment stated, "the charge cannot be sustained on this record."

The State sought a finding of guilt and the standard penalty available on the charge. It relied on the receipt and a store note said to have been made contemporaneously, arguing that the note showed Price was told the charger had not been rung up before he left.

According to the State, the silent video did not undermine the store note because it could not reveal the content of any conversation at the register or near the exit. The State acknowledged it had no audio recording or stronger witness record beyond the receipt and note.

Price’s side did not ultimately dispute that the charger was unpaid. It argued instead that the incident was a checkout mistake rather than theft, pointing to the video of Price tapping his card, taking a receipt and paying for the bottled drink.

The defence also submitted that Price did not flee and said he believed both items had been paid for. It contended that the cashier did not demand the charger’s return or direct Price to return and pay, though those assertions were based on Price’s account rather than independently verified testimony.

The case arose from a visit to Cedar Lane Market, where Price placed a phone charger and bottled iced tea at the counter. The available video showed him tapping a card, taking a receipt and walking toward the exit.

The receipt recorded only the iced tea. The parties agreed by the end of the hearing that the charger had not been paid for, while disputing whether Price knew that at the relevant time.

The court’s outcome does not find that the charger was paid for or that the defence affirmatively proved an honest mistake. It rests on the narrower conclusion that the State’s available evidence did not clearly establish Price’s knowledge of nonpayment before he left.